MP York swept into Parliament on the strength of these commitments, making it clear on the campaign trail that no one should assume he would simply toe the party line. He vowed to be critical, when necessary, to acknowledge where things could have been done better, and, most importantly, to educate the public by being transparent about best practices in governance.
At the time, our headline for that feature was “Will he survive?” because history has shown that the realities of politics, and the expectations of party leadership and loyalists, have caused many MPs before York to fall in line. Those who resist often find themselves isolated or pressured to conform or, ultimately, to declare themselves an independent member of Parliament.
After Wednesday’s Parliament meeting, we find ourselves asking that question again: Will MP York survive, and for how long, in the National Alliance?
The National Alliance faction, York’s own party, summoned Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs to Parliament to demand answers regarding the delayed publishing of building permits and related matters. When it was York’s turn to speak, he appeared to commit a cardinal sin of old-school politics: he acknowledged that financial mismanagement was also an issue under the previous administration. That administration, as everyone knows, was led by former Minister—now MP and National Alliance leader—Egbert Doran.
MP York also recognized that Minister Gumbs did not have bad intentions with his presentation in Parliament, and he refrained from outright stating that Gumbs had done nothing out of respect for the minister’s delegation present at the meeting. Minister Gumbs in addition, also praised York during the COM Press Briefing for being consistent in trying to obtain information from the Ministry. Lastly, York showed that he is pro-active when he said he has been in contact with the Minister’s cabinet for relevant answers to his questions.
In essence, MP York did not stick to the long-standing script of do as we do and act as we act. We can imagine his comments were not warmly received by his party and its leadership. This was not the first time York has walked the fine line between old-school politics and transparent, ethical governance. But this time, he took a clear step toward the latter.
That being said, York’s contribution to the discussion on Wednesday was crucial in bringing much-needed balance to the debate. He was critical of Minister Gumbs but did not shy away from admitting that mistakes were also made by Gumbs’ predecessors. More importantly, he used his platform to explain how these mistakes could be avoided in the future.
York’s background as an engineer, along with his years spent at Windward Roads, gives him a well-informed perspective on infrastructure issues. His knowledge in this sector is unquestioned. As an example, he pointed out how VROMI personnel were painting zebra crossings using materials and techniques more suited for painting a house rather than a road—work that would inevitably fade and wash away in just a few weeks.
York raised pertinent questions to Gumbs regarding permits, transparency, and governance. While York acknowledged the minister’s willingness to provide information, he also criticized the administration’s approach, describing it as largely reactionary rather than proactive. His statements offered a nuanced perspective, balancing criticism with recognition of broader systemic challenges.
MP York expressed disappointment over the lack of proactivity in the Ministry’s handling of permits and urban planning. He highlighted that while Minister Gumbs has been forthcoming with explanations when issues gain public attention, there has been little effort to educate the public beforehand or engage in open discussions outside of crisis moments. This, according to York, creates an impression that decisions are being made in response to media pressure rather than as part of a well-thought-out policy framework. He suggested that if the Ministry had identified key issues earlier in its term, solutions could have been implemented before problems escalated into controversies.
A significant point of contention was the execution timeline of various projects. York referenced the Minister’s statements suggesting that the first three years of the government’s term would be dedicated to investigations and restructuring, with execution planned for later. While acknowledging the importance of proper planning, he questioned whether such an approach risk delaying urgent action on issues like erosion control and drainage improvements. According to York, the nature of the Ministry of VROMI demands ad hoc problem-solving alongside long-term planning, not merely retrospective evaluations. He argued that delaying execution for the sake of restructuring could ultimately create greater inefficiencies, leaving critical issues unresolved for extended periods.
York also brought attention to the issue of transparency, raising concerns that decisions regarding permits and approvals have not been sufficiently explained to the public. He called for greater openness regarding the criteria used to approve or deny building permits, noting that inconsistencies in these processes create confusion and fuel speculation. To address this, he requested that Parliament be provided with clear documentation of decisions where expert advice was given but not followed. By doing so, he hoped to create an accountability framework that would allow both Parliament and the public to better understand the rationale behind government actions.
Another core issue York highlighted was the apparent contradiction between governmental commitments and actual actions. He pointed out inconsistencies in messaging, where promises of transparency were followed by decisions that seemed to mirror past practices. His concern was not merely about policy shifts but about the public perception that governance decisions are made on an ad hoc basis rather than adhering to a strategic vision. This, he argued, erodes public trust and makes it more difficult for the government to secure cooperation on important projects.
Furthermore, York did not shy away from addressing financial mismanagement, a problem he acknowledged was not exclusive to the current administration. He stressed that poor decision-making leads not just to legal consequences but also to unnecessary spending and misuse of public funds. In this regard, he challenged Minister Gumbs to ensure that new decisions do not repeat past mistakes under the guise of reform. He recalled how previous governments faced backlash for their financial decisions, noting that any misstep in this regard could have lasting repercussions for the administration’s credibility.
Additionally, York referenced a recent controversy surrounding the Ministry’s handling of illegal garages, an issue that had been highlighted months prior. While he acknowledged that the government had taken steps to address the matter, he questioned why the public was given the impression that immediate action was forthcoming when, in reality, no execution date had been set. This, he argued, exemplifies a broader issue where policies and reforms are announced prematurely, creating unrealistic expectations and potential disillusionment among citizens.
Despite his critiques, York maintained that his questioning was not meant to undermine the minister but rather to push for more accountability and clarity.
He recognized the difficulty of the minister’s position, stating that taking the job inherently means accepting the challenge of fixing systemic issues. York’s closing remarks emphasized that his critiques stem from a belief that Gumbs has the capacity to resolve these challenges if he remains committed to his promises. He urged the minister to align his words with concrete actions, stressing that credibility is built not only on good intentions but on consistent and effective implementation of policies.
MP York’s remarks was clearly meant to offer a broader lesson on governance in St. Maarten: transparency must be more than a reactionary measure, and public engagement must be proactive, not merely a response to controversy. As the administration moves forward, the real test will be whether it can transition from explaining policies after the fact to implementing them with clarity and foresight from the outset. If Minister Gumbs and his team can strike the right balance between long-term planning and immediate action, they may yet succeed in creating the kind of effective governance that citizens expect and deserve. However, if the government continues to rely on reactionary measures and inconsistent messaging, it risks not only political backlash but also a loss of public confidence in its ability to govern effectively.
Source: The Peoples Tribune https://www.thepeoplestribunesxm.com
View comments
Hide comments